Apart from the lack of an obvious challenger, one of the things holding Labour MPs back from a change in leader would be the "double democratic deficit" it might create.

It would be the second change of prime minister without the public having a say, and the party would be faced with no option but to have to hold an election pdq.

So what about a change of leader at the very last moment before the next election must be held: May 2010? A Labour MP, unhappy with the status quo, has just mentioned the "Bob Hawke scenario" to me.

"This is very important. The Australian Labour party elected Hawke at the 11th hour and he went on to win the 1983 election in a landslide and stay as their leader for eight years. I think more and more of us will be thinking of this option."

Hawke was indeed made PM less than 30 days after becoming leader of the party, and a mere three years after entering parliament.

My colleague, Martin Kettle, sitting next to me, raises an eyebrow. He says that at the time, events in Australia did not go unnoticed in the UK Labour party.

Michael Foot was Labour leader but the right of the party wanted him out and replaced by Denis Healey, and so they planned to use what they predicted to be a very bad byelection defeat in Darlington to bounce Michael Foot out and Healey in, only a couple of months before the 1983 general election. On the basis that if Hawke could do it, Healey might too.

The trouble - for the right - was that Darlington wasn't as bad as all that and Foot led the party into the election. As in 1983, Labour rebels now might be advised not to bank on the Hawke scenario.